The big, the bad and the public

Britain needs to improve the way major projects are delivered. That’s the view of Matthew Vickerstaff, interim chief executive of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), who spoke at the government’s inaugural Project Delivery Conference at the turn of the year.

“We need to lift our gaze up from the immediate task of delivering individual projects and improve the way projects are delivered – and aspire to be the best-performing project system in the world,” Vickerstaff said.

Whether the public sees a major project as a success or failure largely depends on issues outside the traditional scope of project management. Time, cost and quality parameters are one thing, but – in the case of major infrastructure projects – how projects fulfil wider social contracts is often the biggest determiner of ‘success’.

Hinkley Point C, for example, is slated to have many wider economic and social benefits beyond just providing a new source of low-carbon energy. Construction of the new reactors should create 25,000 employment opportunities and means the delivery of up to 1,000 new apprenticeships. About 64 per cent of the value of Hinkley Point C is predicted to go to British companies, according to EDF.

Similarly, official analysis suggests that the new north-west runway at Heathrow will deliver up to £61bn of benefits over 60 years to passengers and the wider UK economy, creating thousands of local jobs. HS2 may create 100,000 jobs around stations along its new route.

“Our work has a direct impact on the lives of citizens,” Vickerstaff told the conference. “Understanding how projects deliver against promises is crucial; it helps us feed back into the system and improve performance over time.”

The IPA says it is currently delivering projects with a value of more than £450bn. “The scope and scale of these projects easily rivals the private sector, and some are the biggest in the world,” Vickerstaff said.

Ensuring these mega-projects deliver on their wider promises in the years to come must be the goal of project and programme managers everywhere.

It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it
Major UK capital infrastructure investments are at a scale not seen for half a century

Critics of major infrastructure programmes cite high costs, disruption and poor productivity, leading them to question such investments. Those promoting and managing these programmes must communicate the tangible benefits to local communities and other potential stakeholders.

Infrastructure investment acts as a stimulus for local economic development. This provides educational opportunities for apprentices, recent graduates and experienced hires alike. Employment must be channelled to local suppliers, and communities must see these opportunities realised.

Confidence in continuing resource capability is critical for both the infrastructure owner and its supply chain. A joint approach to talent development can be facilitated through the inclusion of training investment requirements within the contract.

Large infrastructure owners must also be mindful of parts of the supply chain being too reliant on an individual programme of work, as this is unhealthy for both parties. It is also important that smaller companies are not overstretched. This requires the infrastructure owner to set sustainable levels of order placement in relation to the supplier’s overall turnover.

Programme management teams need to have a clear understanding of the education and training institutions that are being used by the infrastructure owner and the supporting supply chain. As infrastructure programmes may last several years, this understanding enables effective long-term planning. By using high-level resource projections, the programme management team can assess the demand for skills for which local education institutions will need to cater.

Paul Taylor is technical director, programme management, at Stantec